Willie Trottie v. Brad Livingston
766 F.3d 450
5th Cir.2014Background
- Willie Tyrone Trottie was sentenced to death in Texas for two murders; state and federal habeas petitions were denied and his execution was scheduled for Sept. 10, 2014.
- On the eve of execution Trottie filed a § 1983 suit seeking a preliminary injunction/TRO to stay execution, claiming secrecy about the pentobarbital created an unconstitutional risk of severe pain and violated due process.
- Texas disclosed the drug is 5 g pentobarbital from a licensed U.S. compounding pharmacy, tested by an independent lab as 108% potent and contaminant-free, not expiring until Sept. 30, 2014.
- The State will use its July 9, 2012 Execution Procedure (single-drug pentobarbital protocol), which had been used in 33 Texas executions and involves a drug team and medical personnel inserting IVs.
- The district court denied injunctive relief; the Fifth Circuit reviewed that denial for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due-process right to disclosure of drug source, preparation, and testing | Trottie: secrecy about pentobarbital and testing deprives him of information needed to assess risk of severe pain | Texas: disclosed key facts (dose, source type, independent lab results, expiration) and no cognizable liberty interest in disclosure | Denied — no cognizable liberty interest; precedent forecloses a due-process right to this disclosure |
| Eighth Amendment risk from method/drug | Trottie: secrecy plus botched executions elsewhere creates a substantial risk of severe pain warranting a stay | Texas: execution protocol (single-drug pentobarbital + trained personnel) has been upheld; mere speculation is insufficient | Denied — speculative risk does not show likelihood of severe pain; insufficient to obtain injunction |
| Standard for preliminary injunction in execution context | Trottie: equitable relief necessary to prevent irreparable pain | State: equity must account for strong state interest in carrying out sentences; movant must show likelihood of success and irreparable injury | Denied — Trottie failed to show likelihood of success on the merits and thus cannot obtain injunction |
| Binding effect of prior Fifth Circuit decisions | Trottie: seeks disclosure despite prior cases | State: prior panel precedent controls; no intervening change in law | Denied — court bound by Sells and related Fifth Circuit precedents |
Key Cases Cited
- Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (U.S. 2008) (Supreme Court on Eighth Amendment and judicial restraint in execution-method claims)
- Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573 (U.S. 2006) (plaintiff may bring § 1983 challenge to method of execution; stays are equitable remedies)
- Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2004) (equity must consider state’s strong interest in enforcing criminal judgments)
- Janvey v. Alguire, 647 F.3d 585 (5th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for preliminary injunction in Fifth Circuit)
- Sells v. Livingston, 750 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2014) (no due-process liberty interest in obtaining execution-protocol information)
- Sepulvado v. Jindal, 729 F.3d 413 (5th Cir. 2013) (uncertainty as to method of execution is not a cognizable liberty interest)
- Whitaker v. Livingston, 732 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2013) (speculation insufficient; must show hypothetical based on science/fact of severe pain)
- Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2010) (upholding Texas procedures involving drug team and medically trained IV insertion)
- Jacobs v. Nat’l Drug Intelligence Ctr., 548 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2008) (panel precedent rule of orderliness controls lower panels)